As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.” Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.” They have relished that role despite their voters. Thus these leaders gradually solidified their choice to no longer represent what had been their constituency, but to openly adopt the identity of junior partners in that ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the identity of Republican voters and of the majority of Republican elected representatives, the Republican leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

By the law of supply and demand, millions of Americans, (arguably a majority) cannot remain without representation. Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old. This marks these political orphans as a “country class.” In 1776 America’s country class responded to lack of representation by uniting under the concept: “all men are created equal.” In our time, its disparate sectors’ common sentiment is more like: “who the hell do they think they are?”

The ever-growing U.S. government has an edgy social, ethical, and political character. It is distasteful to a majority of persons who vote Republican and to independent voters, as well as to perhaps one fifth of those who vote Democrat. The Republican leadership’s kinship with the socio-political class that runs modern government is deep. Country class Americans have but to glance at the Media to hear themselves insulted from on high as greedy, racist, violent, ignorant extremists. Yet far has it been from the Republican leadership to defend them. Whenever possible, the Republican Establishment has chosen candidates for office – especially the Presidency – who have ignored, soft-pedaled or given mere lip service to their voters’ identities and concerns.

Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side. Again: While the ruling class is well represented by the Democratic Party, the country class is not represented politically – by the Republican Party or by any other. Well or badly, its demand for representation will be met.

Representation is the distinguishing feature of democratic government. To be represented, to trust that one’s own identity and interests are secure and advocated in high places, is to be part of the polity. In practice, any democratic government’s claim to the obedience of citizens depends on the extent to which voters feel they are party to the polity. No one doubts that the absence, loss, or perversion of that function divides the polity sharply between rulers and ruled.

Representation can be perverted. Some regimes (formerly the Communists, and currently the Islamists) allow dissent from the ruling class to be represented only by parties approved by the ruling class. Also, in today’s European Union the ruling class’ wide spread and homogeneity leaves those who do not like how their country is run with no one to represent them. Though America’s ruling class is neither as narrow as that of Communist regimes nor as broadly preclusive as that of the European Union, the Republican leadership’s preference for acting as part of the ruling class rather than as representatives of voters who feel set upon has begun to produce the sort of soft pre-emption of opposition and bitterness between rulers and ruled that occurs necessarily wherever representation is mocked.

To see how America’ country class can be represented, let us glance at how the current division of American politics into a ruling class and a country class came about and why it is inherently unstable.

Ins and Outs

Those who attribute the polarization of American politics to the partisan drawing of congressional districts at the state level have a point: The Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr (1962) inadvertedly legalized gerrymandering by setting “one man one vote” as the sole basis of legitimacy for drawing legislative districts. Subsequent judicial interpretations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act demanded that districts be drawn to produce Congressmen with specific features. No surprise then that Democratic and Republican legislatures and governors, thus empowered, have drawn the vast majority of America’s Congressional districts to be safe for Democrats or Republicans respectively. Such districts naturally produce Congressmen who represent their own party more than the general population. This helped the parties themselves to grow in importance. But the U.S. Senate and state governments also have polarized because public opinion in general has.

Political partisanship became a more important feature of American life over the past half-century largely because the Democratic Party, which has been paramount within the U.S. government since 1932, entrenched itself as America’s ruler, and its leaders became a ruling class. This caused a Newtonian “opposite reaction,” which continues to gather force.

In our time, the Democratic Party gave up the diversity that had characterized it since Jeffersonian times. Giving up the South, which had been its main bastion since the Civil War as well as the working classes that had been the heart of its big city machines from Boston to San Diego, it came to consist almost exclusively of constituencies that make up government itself or benefit from government. Big business, increasingly dependent on government contracts and regulation, became a virtual adjunct of the contracting agents and regulators. Democrats’ traditional labor union auxiliaries shifted from private employees to public. Administrators of government programs of all kinds, notably public assistance, recruited their clientele of dependents into the Party’s base. Democrats, formerly the party of slavery and segregation, secured the allegiance of racial minorities by unrelenting assertions that the rest of American society is racist. Administrators and teachers at all levels of education taught two generations that they are brighter and better educated than the rest of Americans, whose objections to the schools’ (and the Party’s) prescriptions need not be taken seriously.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of American education’s centralization, intellectual homogenization and partisanship in the formation of the ruling class’ leadership. Many have noted the increasing stratification of American society and that, unlike in decades past, entry into its top levels now depends largely on graduation from elite universities. As Charles Murray has noted, their graduates tend to marry one another, perpetuating what they like to call a “meritocracy.” But this is rule not by the meritorious, rather by the merely credentialed – because the credentials are suspect. As Ron Unz has shown, nowadays entry into the ivied gateways to power is by co-option, not merit. Moreover, the amount of study required at these universities leaves their products with more pretense than knowledge or skill. The results of their management– debt, decreased household net worth, increased social strife – show that America has been practicing negative selection of elites.

Nevertheless as the Democratic Party has grown its constituent parts into a massive complex of patronage, its near monopoly of education has endowed its leaders ever more firmly with the conviction that they are as entitled to deference and perquisites as they are to ruling. The host of its non-governmental but government-financed entities, such as Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, argue for government funding by stating, correctly, that they are pursuing the public interest as government itself defines it.

Thus by the turn of the twenty first century America had a bona fide ruling class that transcends government and sees itself at once as distinct from the rest of society – and as the only element thereof that may act on its behalf. It rules – to use New York Times columnist David Brooks’ characterization of Barack Obama – “as a visitor from a morally superior civilization.” The civilization of the ruling class does not concede that those who resist it have any moral or intellectual right, and only reluctantly any civil right, to do so. Resistance is illegitimate because it can come only from low motives. President Obama’s statement that Republican legislators – and hence the people who elect them – don’t care whether “seniors have decent health care…children have enough to eat” is typical.

Republican leaders neither parry the insults nor vilify their Democratic counterparts in comparable terms because they do not want to beat the ruling class, but to join it in solving the nation’s problems. How did they come to cut such pathetic figures?

The Republican Party never fully adapted itself to the fact that modern big government is an interest group in and of itself, inherently at odds with the rest of society, that it creates a demand for representation by those it alienates, and hence that politicians must choose whether to represent the rulers or the ruled. The Republican Party had been the party of government between the Civil War and 1932. But government then was smaller in size, scope, and pretense. The Rockefellers of New York and Lodges of Massachusetts – much less the Tafts of Ohio – did not aspire to shape the lives of the ruled, as does modern government. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal largely shut these Republicans out of the patronage and power of modern government.

By the late 1930s, being out of power had begun to make the Republicans the default refuge of voters who did not like what the new, big government was doing. Some Republican leaders – the Taft wing of the Party – adopted this role. The Rockefeller wing did not. Though the latter were never entirely comfortable with the emerging Democratic ruling class, their big business constituency pressed them to be their advocate to it. A few such Republicans (e.g. Kevin Philips The Emerging Republican Majority) even dreamed during the Nixon-Ford Administration of the 1970s that they might replace Democrats at the head of the ruling class. But the die had been cast long since: Corporations, finance, and the entitled high and low – America’s “ins” – gravitated to the Democrats’ permanent power, while the “outs” fled into the Republican fold. Thus after WWII the Republican Party came to consist of office holders most of who yearned to be “ins,” and of voters who were mostly “outs.”

This internal contradiction was unsustainable. The Republican leadership, regarding its natural constituency as embarrassing to its pursuit of a larger role in government, limited its appeal to it. Thus it gradually cut itself off from the only root of the power by which it might gain that role. Thus the Republicans proved to be “the stupid party.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Sorry to say,the article sounds much too much of negative thoughts which seem to have taken birth out of some frustration.How can any one find comparisons between the concepts of slavery which had existed in 1776 or in the later years culminating into a civil war,and promulgation of enactments leading to abolition the slavery,with the modern times of the politically awakened masses who know their rights of votes,right to recall their representatives or question their leaders through the constitutional provisions of accountability? Again,how come the author compares concept of Whigs with the modern day parties whether Democrates or Republicans? Whigs’ down fall is attributed partly to their slogan that”everyman hath a price”with the 21st century world where such things don’t exist and none can dare nurse on such slogans.Experience of the sudden birth of Tea-Party was short lived owing mainly due to faulty execution of this party’s agenda.Mit Romney could’nt succeed as he lacked a support from women due to some faults in his own agenda that we all understand.Counrty is facing an extremely uphill task to meet the challenge of wiping out over $18 trlns worth of deficits,and for that matter some compromises need to be made by the parties across the political aisel,would that mean,for any stretch of reasoning that the Republican party is losing its sheen or that,the country is being orphaned? Let’s give a pragmatic approach,and evolve a resolution,to find remedy to clean the slate from its financial crunch and wipe out deficits.In the modern times,parties across the aisel should’nt sit across,to create stumbling blocks,for the sake of opposition.I am so sorry,I am giving an optimistic view.

In the previous years, the 2 parties wanted to spend a lot of money and one side said let’s increase spending by $1 trillion while the other side said let’s spend $1.4 trillion so compromise was that we increased spending by $1.2 trillion.

That’s not where conservatives are now. Instead of increasing spending by anything, conservatives say let’s cut spending. Old school Repubs want to increases pending, just on things they want to spend $$ on like the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

So it is not just an issue of compromise or “can’t we all just get along” like it used to be. We are truly at a crossroads.

Oops,a few lines got skipped from my post! Iceland was at the brink of almost bankruptcy,facing conditions like Greek,in the wake of grave melt-down with huge financial deficits.Then parties there rose to the occasion,gave a united support in the matter of bringing their nation’s economy back to track.A lot of good work has been done by them in this behalf yet much more remains to be achieved,so Iceland is on its feet struggling hard continuously to bring back rosey days over there; does it mean,Icelanders have become orphans since their political parties across the spectrum have joined hands to steer clear their economy? Right now Iceland is a role model before the world’s democracies,courage,stamina and large-heartedness to fight for a common cause for the sake of their country ignoring their differences.

Icelanders, regardless of party, mostly recognized they could not continue to borrow their way of a debt-induced economic collapse. That is not the case here in the US. The democrats, now a majority, simply refuse to acknowledge that our debt is slowly draining us; it is the reason that recessions have been progressively deeper and longer to recover from. Until Americans can muster a common understanding that we can not continue to print money and borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, the will be no political unity, there can’t be without at least one underlying common principle shared within both parties. The remarkable thing is that all monetary history should that the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue advocating running our debt to infinity with know intent to make good on it.

You’re starting to sound like a broken record (in case you are too young to remember, ‘records’ are large vinyl discs with grooves in them that people used to put on “turntables” that turned in circles, and music that was recorded on the discs would come out)…got anything else to say, or is that it?

There are serious problems with the ‘country class’ that will prevent its rise among thoughtful people. Number one may be its willful ignorance of and hostility to science and scientific method which lead it to support policies in education, medicine and sciences that are anathema to educated ‘country class’ sympathizers. Second is its authoritarian outlook on personal freedoms in sex and marriage. Third is its tendency to view socio-economic problems through a lens of unattractive racial stereotypes. Fourth is its willingness to trust businesspeople who are secretly part of or dependent on the ruling class. I could probably go on. In short, I need to be shown that the ‘country classes’, or at least their candidates, though with legitimate grievances, are not ‘country asses’.